2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Team 63 v 50<br />
CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF OF 15<br />
MINOR, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF<br />
ALBANY, NEW YORK, Respondent.<br />
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First<br />
Department, New York<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Argued<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Decided<br />
COUNSEL: RJ Morrow and Mason<br />
Callahan, for Appellant.<br />
Emily Collins and Adrianna<br />
Wurster, for Respondent.<br />
JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu,<br />
Blaszczyk, Furia<br />
OPINION BY: Last<br />
OPINION<br />
We the Appellant Court <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> New<br />
York find in favor <strong>of</strong> the appellant, Chuck Maze<br />
on behalf <strong>of</strong> the 15 minors. The appellant<br />
properly proved that the Boardman’s deserved to<br />
receive more money for their services rendered<br />
to their clients.<br />
The respondent made good claims that the hours<br />
expended on the case were excessive and the<br />
Boardman’s could have conducted the<br />
interviews in a more efficient way. Therefore,<br />
we uphold the decision <strong>of</strong> Judge Kheleher to<br />
reduce the reported hours by thirty percent. The<br />
court felt that the defendant proved that the work<br />
done for the interviews was clearly clerical<br />
work. Therefore we find that the fee <strong>of</strong> $708,000<br />
needs to be reduced by $25,000 based on the<br />
fact that “it is appropriate to distinguish between<br />
legal work, in the strict sense, and investigation,<br />
clerical work…and other work that can be<br />
accomplished by nonlawyers…” as sited in the<br />
case <strong>of</strong> Rahmey v. Blum.<br />
However, the respondents were more convincing<br />
in that the Judge abused his discretion by not<br />
granting enough money to the Boardman’s. The<br />
appellant properly used the nine adjustments <strong>of</strong><br />
the Lodestar test outlined in the case <strong>of</strong> Rahmey<br />
v. Blum to explain why the Boardman’s<br />
deserved more money. The appellant proved that<br />
the Boardman’s took on a very novel case. This<br />
case was novel due to the fact that Katie made a<br />
third party pay for the pain and suffering <strong>of</strong> the<br />
minors in the elevator. The appellant properly<br />
cited that in the case in Flemming v. Barnwell, a<br />
precedent was set for our case in that the lawyers<br />
received more money then was asked for<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the novelty <strong>of</strong> the case. We the court<br />
award the appellant $100,000 for the novelty <strong>of</strong><br />
the case. A legitimate claim was presented that<br />
no other employment could be taken on at the<br />
time due to the fact that they had to complete<br />
two thousand interviews in order to find two<br />
valuable unbiased witnesses to testify that Joe<br />
was a “bad” guy. Therefore we raise the amount<br />
by $10,000 for the preclusion <strong>of</strong> other<br />
employment. We the court felt that prong four<br />
and five did not apply to this matter, and neither<br />
side proved <strong>of</strong> what nature and length was the<br />
relationship with their clients. The appellant<br />
adequately proved that the Boardman’s received<br />
more than $46.22 for their clients by proving<br />
that the Boardman’s are protecting New York<br />
citizens by adding an incentive for more<br />
frequent elevator maintenance. The appellant<br />
cited this to the case <strong>of</strong> Lunday v. The City <strong>of</strong><br />
Albany which states that “the plaintiffs success<br />
is the ‘most critical’ factor in determining the<br />
reasonableness <strong>of</strong> the fee awarded.” Therefore,<br />
we the court grant an increase <strong>of</strong> $25,000 for<br />
results obtain. The appellant also adequately<br />
proved to the court that this was an undesirable<br />
case due to the fact that it is very hard to prove<br />
Joe to be a bad person because he is beloved by<br />
many. Also the case was undesirable because<br />
they had to complete two thousand tedious<br />
interviews about the same topic. The court<br />
grants the Boardman’s $30,000 due to the fact<br />
that the case was undesirable.<br />
For these reasons we rule to overturn Judge<br />
Khelher’s decision to give more money to the<br />
Boardman’s for their services rendered to their<br />
clients. We therefore we find in favor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
appellant and awards for attorney fees <strong>of</strong><br />
$848,000.<br />
73